JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner in possession of

7 ares and 47 cents of land comprised in Survey No.220/1 and 221/1 of Elankoor Village covered by Ext.P1 jenm assignment deed No.6267/2008 dated 20.09.2008 of Sub Registrar Office, Wandoor and Ext.P2 tax receipt dated 26.04.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent Village Officer and Ext.P3 purchase certificate dated 28.07.2006 issued by Land Tribunal, Manjeri, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an appropriate writ commanding the 2nd respondent Village Officer to permit her to remit land tax with respect to Ext.P1 property and to accept the same.

2. On 22.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader would point out on account of the pendency of ceiling case No. C.R.No.603/77/M4 of the Taluk Land Board, Eranad dated 20.10.2020 .

5. In Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner [(2007) 6 SCC 186] the Apex Court reiterated that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in 'record of rights'. The entries in revenue records or jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose', i.e., payment of land revenue and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as the title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court [vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh (1993)

4 SCC 403].

6. In Sudan K.K. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2013 (4) KHC 201] this Court held that the pendency of civil suit can ever be a bar with regard to the acceptance of land tax, unless specifically restrained from accepting the tax by virtue of any order passed by the court.

7. In Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (died through legal heirs) v. Arther Import and Export Company and Others [(2019) 3 SCC 191] the Apex Court reiterated that the law on the question of mutation in the revenue records pertaining to any land and what is its legal value while deciding the rights of the parties is fairly well settled by a series of decisions of this Court. The Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. [see:Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma v. State of Karnataka (2009) 5 SCC 591)].

8. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the mere pendency of ceiling case, C.R.No.603/77/M4 before the Taluk Land Board, Eranad, will not be a bar on the 2nd respondent Village Officer in accepting land tax in respect of the property owned by the petitioner, covered by Ext.P1 deed, since mutation of a land in the revenue records or payment of land tax does not create or extinguish the title over the property nor has it any presumptive value on the title.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner to accept land tax of the property covered by Ext.P1 title deed, if there are no other legal impediments, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.